Obama Sues Arizona! Any Lawyers about?
- Thread starter amicus
- Start date
cloudy
Alabama Slammer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Posts
- 37,997
I'd measure it, but he's in bed asleep (he works hard so I don't have to).
Any other questions?
Miss_Pixie
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
- Posts
- 1,265
If we can't impeach him for lack of better choice can the supreme court and congress all line up and bitch slap him?
Austin8
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Posts
- 12,779
Hahaha! your the one starting the circle jerk, not your Hub, what you get pissed and conk him on the head with a iron skillet?
Miss_Pixie
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
- Posts
- 1,265
A flower would be lovely!
cloudy
Alabama Slammer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Posts
- 37,997
Sorry, sweets, but, no. He and I get along fine: he goes to work, earns good money, and I spend it. Perfect arrangement.
What other parts of my business would you like to poke your nose in?
, here, have another, Miss_Pixie
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
- Posts
- 1,265
Hah! Thanks for the flowers 
TE999
How 'bout a kiss, baby
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Posts
- 30,088
Hah! Thanks for the flowers
Looks like the princess went back to the reservation.
[We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread topic]
This farce is a shameless bid by Obeyme and the Dems to gin up some Latino votes in November.
How can you contest your own law?
cloudy
Alabama Slammer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Posts
- 37,997
Well, y'all have been...mildly diverting, but I'm tired from training, so I'm going to have a yogurt and go to bed. I promised the boys a movie tomorrow afternoon, and then I have a two hour training class tomorrow night. I have a Tourney to prepare for. In other words: a life.
Ta.
Ta.
Last edited:
Miss_Pixie
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
- Posts
- 1,265
How can you contest your own law?
Because Obama is the new Jesus... and he's so special he doesn't need to follow his OWN laws... let alone other people's laws
TE999
How 'bout a kiss, baby
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Posts
- 30,088
He's a legend in his own mind alrighty. That particular law was written when Obeyme was a community organizer...or maybe when he was the Ghost Student of the Yale Campus...at any rate maybe he forgot it exists.
His AH could'a tolt him I guess, but he's too busy suing BP and giving the New Black Panthers wrist slaps...and then high fives.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
The Governor of Aiizona, in her first public statement following the filing, basically said, "Stuff it, Obama & Goons, we will enforce the law if you won't!
Good on her!
...and the beat goes on....this is gonna be a big one, kiddies, you betcha!
heh
damn, I be on a roll!
ami
Good on her!
...and the beat goes on....this is gonna be a big one, kiddies, you betcha!
heh
damn, I be on a roll!
ami
TE999
How 'bout a kiss, baby
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Posts
- 30,088
The Governor of Aiizona, in her first public statement following the filing, basically said, "Stuff it, Obama & Goons, we will enforce the law if you won't!
Good on her!
...and the beat goes on....this is gonna be a big one, kiddies, you betcha!
heh
damn, I be on a roll!
ami
This could be the beginning of the reassertion of States Rights that the states surrendered many years ago in exchange for federal government largesse...much as Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.
What's Obeyme gonna do? Send the FBI to arrest the Governor? That should go over well. And in an election year too.
JackLuis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Posts
- 21,881
The issue is "Authority verses Responsibility".
The Feds have the authority to enforce the laws and seem to have been held responsible by Arizona, who acted out of self defense.
The Obama lawsuit was made necessary by Arizona's SB 1070, is it legal? No, Fed trumps State every time, it's tried in Federal Court.
Arizona has only two Senators, and very few Federal Resources, compared with Calif and NY. Add the fact that it is one the other side of the Potomac by a good ways and Obama sees none of the facts on the ground.
The good Sheriff pointed out the State Department, as part of the "Federal Partnership" that enforces our immigration policy, you know they are right on Mexican American Affairs.
The Feds have the authority to enforce the laws and seem to have been held responsible by Arizona, who acted out of self defense.
The Obama lawsuit was made necessary by Arizona's SB 1070, is it legal? No, Fed trumps State every time, it's tried in Federal Court.
Arizona has only two Senators, and very few Federal Resources, compared with Calif and NY. Add the fact that it is one the other side of the Potomac by a good ways and Obama sees none of the facts on the ground.
The good Sheriff pointed out the State Department, as part of the "Federal Partnership" that enforces our immigration policy, you know they are right on Mexican American Affairs.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
An Arizona spokesperson stated that 436,000 illegals crossed the border in the past year...a half a million people.
I can't confirm that, nor do I find it really believable as I doubt they counted them, so it must be a ratio of those caught to those not, or some such thing.
The Brqacero's program, permitting Mexican farm workers into the US for seasonal work, has been going on since about the 1960's. I imagine many of them stayed.
About three million were granted amnesty in the 80's, as I understand and we are now near 20 million without documentation?
It is not a new problem, schools and medical facilities have been overwhelmed and costs have risen astronomically as more and more people take advantage of the system.
Instead of a lawsuit against Arizona, one might ask why not sue the so-called, 'Santuary Cities', that welcome and protect illegal aliens?
Sticky wicket...
amicus
I can't confirm that, nor do I find it really believable as I doubt they counted them, so it must be a ratio of those caught to those not, or some such thing.
The Brqacero's program, permitting Mexican farm workers into the US for seasonal work, has been going on since about the 1960's. I imagine many of them stayed.
About three million were granted amnesty in the 80's, as I understand and we are now near 20 million without documentation?
It is not a new problem, schools and medical facilities have been overwhelmed and costs have risen astronomically as more and more people take advantage of the system.
Instead of a lawsuit against Arizona, one might ask why not sue the so-called, 'Santuary Cities', that welcome and protect illegal aliens?
Sticky wicket...
amicus
Zeb_Carter
.-- - ..-.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Posts
- 20,584
Ok fine... he can finish this term... maybe if he fucks up on a more regular basis we can make a drinking game out of his dropping approval rating or something... or maybe out of the times Bidden drops the F bomb...
Wanna rate Obama? Here's your chance, you might be surprised at the poll so far.
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
Arizona didn't enforce the federal law. They made a new state law. No?
I must be missing something about the mechanics here.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Let me make it simple for you.
Take the Americans With Disabilities Act as an example. Its Federal Law. But suppose Obama sez, FUCK THE TARDS and refuses to enforce the law and fund its provisions/mandates. He could. Plenty of Presidents sit on money approved by Congress.
The question now becomes WHY CANT THE STATES enact identical laws for the protection of disabled, and fund the provisions with state taxes? I mean, if Obama insists on being the dog in the manger. They can! Because we have dual sovereignty here in the USA.
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
Ok then. That makes sense. But that was not what you said before. You said "Obama isnt enforcing federal immigration law, so the states can do it by themselves." I read "do it" as enforcing federal law. Hence the confusion.
Anyway, it all seems a bit nitty gritty to me. If it's overtuned in court it seems to be due to a technicality in the state sovereignity thing, not due to any major thing whithin the law itself.
Somewhere here, is where bounds of reason should kick in. But since we're deaing with lawyers, combined with a crossfire of partisan politics, that ain't ever gonna happen.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
It is, as far as I can determine, partisan politics on several levels and from opposing camps.
Although I, and many of my age and generation, were happy to have seasonal farm work during the summer. Why and how that changed is a matter of conjecture, but the result was not enough workers to harvest crops.
Every business seeks to acquire labor at the lowest possible wage, not as a greed factor but as a means to compete with other businesses who pay lower wages to itinerant workers who move from crop to crop across several States as each different fruit or vegetable ripens at different times and must be harvested when they are ripe.
I worked in the fields as a boy, earnng fifty cents an hour, which was a decent wage in the 50's for young people at the entry level of skills.
Many enterprises, not just agriculture, willingly hire immigrant workers and even provide housing for them for the duration of the harvest of a particular crop. Other industries that are labor intensive, utilize low paid, unskilled workers to keep the cost of labor down and even though the wages are low in comparison to skilled workers, it is three to five time greater than wages paid in Mexico and without the corruption and bribes that workers are forced to pay just to get a job.
Labor Unions have been trying for a half a century to Unionize migrant workers for the dues they are forced to pay and the control exercised by unions to strike or withhold labor to gain advantages over whatever industry they infiltrate.
Politically, lower income Hsipanics, mainly Catholic, are easy pickings when it comes to securing their votes and support for political campaigns...this represents the driving force for the Union supported Democrat party at all levels.
In real terms, immigrants are a valuable source of labor and a positive factor in any economy, as they, like everyone else, are consumers of most all commodities.
It is a real tug of war politically and immigration laws have been largely ignored by both Parties and government enforcement agencies. It is only with the advent of intense drug trafficking, and now the inflitration of terrorist groups that the overall problem has heated to a boil.
I personally do not see an affable solution. It is impractical to deport millions of people and perhaps not even possible. Doing so would strangle the agriculture industry and bring about a huge increase in prices at the supermarket for all consumers.
Perhaps others have a solution; I just don't see one.
Amicus
Although I, and many of my age and generation, were happy to have seasonal farm work during the summer. Why and how that changed is a matter of conjecture, but the result was not enough workers to harvest crops.
Every business seeks to acquire labor at the lowest possible wage, not as a greed factor but as a means to compete with other businesses who pay lower wages to itinerant workers who move from crop to crop across several States as each different fruit or vegetable ripens at different times and must be harvested when they are ripe.
I worked in the fields as a boy, earnng fifty cents an hour, which was a decent wage in the 50's for young people at the entry level of skills.
Many enterprises, not just agriculture, willingly hire immigrant workers and even provide housing for them for the duration of the harvest of a particular crop. Other industries that are labor intensive, utilize low paid, unskilled workers to keep the cost of labor down and even though the wages are low in comparison to skilled workers, it is three to five time greater than wages paid in Mexico and without the corruption and bribes that workers are forced to pay just to get a job.
Labor Unions have been trying for a half a century to Unionize migrant workers for the dues they are forced to pay and the control exercised by unions to strike or withhold labor to gain advantages over whatever industry they infiltrate.
Politically, lower income Hsipanics, mainly Catholic, are easy pickings when it comes to securing their votes and support for political campaigns...this represents the driving force for the Union supported Democrat party at all levels.
In real terms, immigrants are a valuable source of labor and a positive factor in any economy, as they, like everyone else, are consumers of most all commodities.
It is a real tug of war politically and immigration laws have been largely ignored by both Parties and government enforcement agencies. It is only with the advent of intense drug trafficking, and now the inflitration of terrorist groups that the overall problem has heated to a boil.
I personally do not see an affable solution. It is impractical to deport millions of people and perhaps not even possible. Doing so would strangle the agriculture industry and bring about a huge increase in prices at the supermarket for all consumers.
Perhaps others have a solution; I just don't see one.
Amicus
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
AMICUS
Numerous schemes have been tried since the Revolution: slaves, indentured servants, convict labor, migrant workers, illegals.
I see some future for urban farming where the consumer drives down the street to pick their own veggies from a lot filled with fresh produce. One or two people can operate an urban farm.
Numerous schemes have been tried since the Revolution: slaves, indentured servants, convict labor, migrant workers, illegals.
I see some future for urban farming where the consumer drives down the street to pick their own veggies from a lot filled with fresh produce. One or two people can operate an urban farm.
Wrong
The issue is STATES RIGHTS Vs FEDERALISM under the 14th Amendment, the foundation of "Due process Law". Anyone who believes otherwise is nuts. It's a no brainer. It has become a simple proposition at this point because it is highly partison.
It shouldn't be but it is and it will be argued in a partisan fashion and heard by a partisan court who will return a partisan verdict to a partisan Nation on a 5 to 4 basis to throw out a childish bill brought by a childish President to pound a startlingly naive nation into subjection.
Can anyone here besides me say OLIGARCHY?
JELoring JD
The issue is "Authority verses Responsibility".
The Feds have the authority to enforce the laws and seem to have been held responsible by Arizona, who acted out of self defense.
The Obama lawsuit was made necessary by Arizona's SB 1070, is it legal? No, Fed trumps State every time, it's aivetried in Federal Court.
Arizona has only two Senators, and very few Federal Resources, compared with Calif and NY. Add the fact that it is one the other side of the Potomac by a good ways and Obama sees none of the facts on the ground.
The good Sheriff pointed out the State Department, as part of the "Federal Partnership" that enforces our immigration policy, you know they are right on Mexican American Affairs.
The issue is STATES RIGHTS Vs FEDERALISM under the 14th Amendment, the foundation of "Due process Law". Anyone who believes otherwise is nuts. It's a no brainer. It has become a simple proposition at this point because it is highly partison.
It shouldn't be but it is and it will be argued in a partisan fashion and heard by a partisan court who will return a partisan verdict to a partisan Nation on a 5 to 4 basis to throw out a childish bill brought by a childish President to pound a startlingly naive nation into subjection.
Can anyone here besides me say OLIGARCHY?
JELoring JD
